LifeNews.com Note: Carl Anderson is the Supreme Knight of the 1.75 million-member Knights of Columbus, the largest lay Catholic organization in the world. On a national and local level the Knights of Columbus is one of the most active groups supporting the pro-life cause.

In November, as we look back on the results of the 2008 presidential contest, I suspect that we'll conclude that Aug. 16 was the day that Barack Obama lost the race.

At the Saddleback Civic Forum on the Presidency, evangelicals had their chance to meet Mr. Obama and to compare his brand of Christianity to theirs. When Mr. Obama said: "Jesus Christ died for my sins, and I am redeemed through him," the evangelical audience was on the same page.

Pastor Rick Warren then posed his question about abortion - a pivotal issue for evangelical Christian and Catholic voters alike - this way: "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" It was a question of how Mr. Obama's faith would inform his conscience and his policy. The Illinois senator's answer - "Answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade" - fell flat, both because it seemed to many people to be a casual answer to a very serious question, and because it simply did not connect with a Christian audience for whom it is an article of faith that God is the author of life.

Every member of the congregation sitting in that church could recite the familiar passage from Jeremiah 1:5 by heart: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you." Or Psalm 139: "I formed you in your mother's womb." In fact, Mr. Warren quoted that psalm a day after the Saddleback Forum, shortly after saying "to just say 'I don't know' on the most divisive issue in America is not a clear enough answer for me."

Taking the "I don't know" approach is quite different from the one commonly used by pro-choice Catholics like former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, who begins by stating a personal belief shared by most Catholics and evangelicals, that abortion is wrong, but then offers not to "impose" his belief as a public official. This formulation is popular among pro-choice Catholics of both parties, from Democrats Joe Biden and Kathleen Sebelius to Republicans Tom Ridge and Susan Collins.

But Mr. Obama conspicuously declined to say abortion is wrong, saying simply, "I believe in Roe v. Wade." The clear implication was that he doesn't believe that abortion is wrong. Throughout the primary season, he had been speaking about faith in a way that had Catholics and evangelicals listening carefully.

But this time, the message didn't resonate. He professed an interest in addressing the question, "how do we reduce the number of abortions?" But he made no effort to explain why they should be reduced, saying only that "there is a moral and ethical element to this issue."

Then, Mr. Obama added, "if you believe that life begins at conception... then I can't argue with you on that because that is a core issue of faith for you."

But it's a scientific fact, not an "issue of faith," that each human being's life begins at conception. To suggest, as he did, that it is more a matter of theology than biology was hardly the sympathetic attitude that this audience was looking for. Instead of connecting with them, he may well have alienated many of them.

The real question, posed precisely by Mr. Warren, is when "does a baby get human rights?" But even if there is disagreement over precisely when those rights should be recognized, can there really be any doubt when a baby is just weeks away from delivery? Why must late-term abortions remain free from restrictions?

Mr. Obama understands the issue as well as anyone in America - and better than most. While he was a student at Harvard Law School, he did research for Lawrence Tribe, when the well-known law professor was writing "Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes."(Mr. Tribe thanks him warmly, by name, in the book.)

Mr. Obama's words at Saddleback and actions as a legislator leave no doubt about where he stands. He opposed a partial-birth abortion bill that passed in the Senate by a 2-1 margin, and later criticized the Supreme Court for upholding the law. As an Illinois state senator, he was among a handful of legislators who opposed a state version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. And he has promised that the first thing he'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act, eliminating all existing restrictions on abortion, including the Hyde Amendment's ban on federal funding.

Saddleback provided a unique opportunity for Mr. Obama. Evangelicals have been very conscious of his having made a deliberate decision to embrace Christianity. But many had been uneasy about Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ and Rev. Jeremiah Wright's espousal of Black Liberation Theology. They were listening for reassurance on Aug. 16, but heard something quite different.

As a result, I think we may look back and find that Mr. Obama's inroads among evangelicals and Catholics ended at Saddleback.

Interesting that the libs do not so categorize the belief that the ancestor, a billion years ago, was a protozoan, or the ancestor a few million years ago was a type of monkey; that’s not called a core issue of faith. But the entity that is conceived by humans, let’s not be hasty and call that a human life! That’s just your faith talking.

What political issue could possibly outweigh this human devastation of 40 million deaths through abortion? The answer, of course, is that there is none. It is time to put away the arguments of political spin masters that only serve to justify abortion killing. We have heard a great deal this year about the need for change. But at the same time we are told that one thing cannot change  namely, the abortion regime of Roe vs. Wade.

It is time that we demand real change, and real change means the end of Roe vs. Wade.

The Catholic Church that I'm familiar with in the Chicago area have a strict policy of separation of church and state. State trumps church everytime. By refusing to excommunicate those liberal politicans who claim to be Catholic while endorsing abortion issues, the Church has become an enormous corporation interested only in the bottom line. The local priests here quietly endorse the Democratic Party and advice the elderly to vote that way. The number of families who attend church has dwindled. Looking at the hypocricy in the church, who could blame them. From the gay priest scandals to the phoney outrage about abortion, they have shown their hand and it's dirty.

Natural facts are not issues of "faith." To short-circuit reality and say, "it is not necessary to establish and accept facts," implying that one's "faith" makes doing so unnecessary, is the ultimate, de-constructionist coup. It's voluntary insanity.

It was no different than Bill Clinton saying, "I'll define "is" the way I want to, you define it the way you want to." It is wanton rebellion against the laws of logic.

It's not good for people to elect a leader who practices something like that.

What an idiot, Roe V. Wade is bad law according to most scholarly observers and should be overturned. But more importantly his reliance on a court case instead of his moral compass (which appears to be broken beyond repair) proves that he is not a man of substance or conviction. The clown is a muslim in sheep's clothing and should not be given the responsibility of dog catcher because that would be above his "pay grade". Stinking Pile of ****! Mirror, mirror on the wall, I am the great one exploiting their white guilt, from one and all!

14
posted on 08/25/2008 5:18:13 PM PDT
by Stayfree
(***************************************IF IT IS LEFT, IT CAN'T BE RIGHT!!)

PB put himself way out there with his voting record. While the traditional argument has been pro-abortion and pro-life; most people see that as an argument between life starting at birth or conception. OB went way overboard with allowing a born baby to be killed by negligience or worse. How many people agree with that? I’m thinking less than .001%.

I’m going to venture off the reservation here. Does it really matter one whit the way one votes when it comes to ending infanticide?

Contrary to the views of (I suspect) most assembled here, I don’t think it does. If Sen. Obama is elected, the status quo won’t change much. Infanticide will remain legal. However if Sen. McCain is elected, the staus quo won’t change much either. Infanticide will likely remain legal. And I base that on what we’ve seen under several years of GOP control of all three branches of government. The GOP had every opportunity to make serious inroads toward ending the savage practice. Yet it didn’t. So why should any pro-creation conservative get excited about the prospect of a McCain presidency?

Of course I take it as a given that those who are pro-creation will not vote for Sen. Obama. I know I won’t, but it’s not because I think it’s going to change the legal situation with regard to unborn children.

I think this really gets to a bigger issue that we who are pro-creation tend to avoid talking about: whether approaching abortion from the perspective of partisan politics makes any sense.

16
posted on 08/25/2008 5:36:47 PM PDT
by RKBA Democrat
(Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!)

As explained to me by a Catholic convert, their interpretation of when life begins is that life is a continuum. It takes a live sperm and a live egg to create a live human being. Hence, life is already present at conception. From there on we can say an unique human person exists. Human life is ongoing and has no beginning, only an end. Abortion kills, destroys, a live human being. Abortion advocates may contend that abortion is justified for any number of reasons, but denying that a human life is being taken is just not biologically sustainable.

You may want to send this testimony out to the Pro-Life ping list. I teach in the MLT Department of our local community college and last week was the first week for the sophomore students in their clinical rotations. They spend Mondays on campus and today they were full of stories about the past week.

One of the students who is the mother of a toddler said that the most amazing thing that she saw was a 17 week-old fetus. The baby tragically died when the placenta ruptured. The student could not get over how well-developed the baby was - down to the tiny fingernails. She said that you could even tell that the baby was a boy. I could not resist saying that many would say that a fetus at this stage is an unviable tissue mass. At 17 weeks, it may be indeed be unviable, but it is certainly not a just a mass of tissue. We got into a conversation about how women who have abortions are not told the truth that they are killing a baby and not just eliminating a tissue mass and how they are often overcome with guilt when they find out what they have done. Not that she would have considered an abortion in the future, but she quickly said that she could NEVER have an abortion after that experience.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.